User:FT2/Canvassing

Canvassing on Wikipedia refers to the sending of messages with the intent to inform them about a community discussion or invite them to participate.

It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to achieve good editorial consensus. It is not acceptable to deliberately manipulate a discussion via the manner of canvassing.

Generally when Wikipedians refer to canvassing, they mean inappropriate canvassing, done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, notifying non-Wikipedians so that people who have no prior involvement in Wikipedia join the debate, or otherwise compromising the normal consensus decision-making process. Such behavior is disruptive. Improper canvassing can lead to involved accounts being given less (or no) weight in the discussion and in some cases being blocked.

Notifying people appropriately
Users can publicize a discussion to gain input from other Wikipedia users who may be interested in contributing to the matter.

This is not a way to get people to support "just your view". Efforts should be made to ensure the users who visit are neutral (and asked neutrally) or capable of representing a reasonably fair sample of Wikipedia community opinion. The major exception is that discussions may be notified to a few directly involved users (ie those who have been significant parties to the same issue before, especially if the discussion is about their actions). If all users with a specific interest would be "on the same side" then the matter should also be publicized to a more uninvolved audience as well. Appropriate methods include leaving a neutral message at one or more of:


 * An article or project talk page relevant to the matter, to notify all editors and watchers of that page.
 * The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion, provided the members of that project are likely to be reasonably balanced contributors to the discussion.
 * A relevant noticeboard.
 * A central location, such as the Village pump or Template:Cent, if the discussion is regarding something which may have a wide impact, such as policies or guidelines.
 * On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
 * Using an RFC template or opening an RFC.

Such notices should ideally be polite, neutrally worded, clear in presentation, and short - a quick request to look at the discussion and give an opinion. The user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion if they wish.

Good and bad practices

 * {| class="wikitable"


 * style="padding-left:8px;padding-right:25px" | Good practices
 * The Please see template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.
 * Post a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.
 * If you respond to a debate that you were asked to visit, it is good practice to start your post by saying "Disclosure: I was asked to visit this page..." so that it is transparent.
 * style="padding-left:8px;padding-right:25px" | Bad practices
 * Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.
 * Do not ask non-Wikipedians to visit a Wikipedia debate - external canvassing and solicitation is strictly forbidden and people who respond as well as the user who asked them to visit, may be blocked (see below).
 * }
 * Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.
 * Do not ask non-Wikipedians to visit a Wikipedia debate - external canvassing and solicitation is strictly forbidden and people who respond as well as the user who asked them to visit, may be blocked (see below).
 * }
 * }
 * }

Inappropriate canvassing of Wikipedians
Discussions can be publicized not only by posting messages on-wiki, but also in any other way that individuals or groups are targeted to be told of a Wikipedia discussion, such as a custom signature containing promotional text or links, posts to other websites and mailing lists, notifying individual contacts, or "word of mouth".

In deciding whether canvassing is improper, the key factors is whether the user has been clearly non-neutral or disruptive. The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate canvassing:


 * Presenting the topic in a non-neutral manner
 * Contacting people (or groups of users) selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")
 * Contacting an excessively large number of users, or users who have asked not to receive such messages
 * Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("spamming")
 * Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post
 * Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions, especially if the message is non-neutral (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages or great care is taken to do so neutrally)
 * Posting messages to external forums, websites, mailing lists, blogs, etc, or to non-Wikipedia friends, colleagues, buddies and allies, so that they come to Wikipedia to support your cause ("external soliciting")

Below are some brief explanation of the most common types of inappropriate notification:

Excessive cross-posting
Important discussions sometimes happen at disparate locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-posting to other Wikipedians' talk pages. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.

Campaigning
Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Votestacking

 * Votestacking redirects here. You may be looking for Survey notification.

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters.

Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Stealth canvassing
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.

Forum shopping
Debates are a means to seek consensus, not a means to keep trying at different venues until an audience can be found to say "yes". While reasonable escalation is fine and at times a debate may be spread across 2 or 3 pages (especially user talk pages of involved users), debates should attempt to find one place where the discussion can be centralized, and users who feel strongly should not repeatedly shop around to find a more receptive audience. Forum shopping means raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want.

Examples of forum shopping include approaching other users to try and find users who will agree on the matter, and reopening the debate at broadly equivalent pages or once a consensus is reached. Note that escalation to a more formal level or requesting review or a second opinion from a trusted editor or a well known noticeboard are not usually the same as "forum shopping" if done in good faith.

Other inappropriate consensus-building methods
Other types of action which are inappropriate in consensus-building are listed within the consensus policy. Apart from canvassing, these include sock puppetry (using multiple accounts) and tendentious editing.

Inappropriate canvassing of non-Wikipedians
While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by external soliciting:


 * Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
 * In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
 * For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting under a request to support a cause, they may be treated for Wikipedia purposes as one entity (meaning, handling may be the same as it would be for sock-puppetry).

(Note that the historical term "meatpuppet" is deprecated, as it can escalate disputes, focuses on labels not behaviors, and can be offensive to newcomers who may not realize they have done anything wrong.)

Other ways to respond to inappropriate canvassing
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.
 * Users who canvass

For Wikipedia purposes a user who canvasses externally is usually seen similarly to one who engages in sock-puppetry. If an assumption of good faith or ignorance is reasonable then a simple explanation to the user may be enough. If it is likely they knew this was improper, or have a record of other disruptive activity, then attempts to solicit external supporters may be seen as further attempts at serious disruption and manipulation of consensus; users have been blocked or banned for this in the past.

It is important to assume good faith of those who attend, and not to bite newcomers who may not know that the canvassed responses may be inappropriate. This needs tact. However at the same time disruption should be prevented. In simple cases tagging single purpose accounts in a non-aggressive manner may help users to understand the discussion better. In extreme cases where it is not clear whether the newcomers are sock-puppets or close allies, or third parties attending due to advocacy, the result can be disruptive and prevent usual Wikipedia consensus-seeking. Often a good solution is to:
 * People who visit due to canvassing
 * 1) Ask the canvasser not to canvass;
 * 2) If needed, tag comments made by single-purpose accounts or tag the discussion with a tag such as Not a ballot;
 * 3) Note the issue in a neutral factual manner for whoever closes the discussion;
 * 4) If accounts and IPs are identified as sock-puppets (or very likely to be) then note this after the comment, so that other users are not misled. (Posts by a blocked user or their socks can also be struck out using &lt;s>...&lt;/s> if appropriate);
 * 5) Request uninvolved help if the problem continues.